Comparative Law Methodology

This important research review examines the most significant and instructive articles relating to comparative law methodology. They offer vast and comprehensive coverage of practices, principles, methods and sources in comparative legal research. The first section deals with preliminary considerations such as the aims of research and the questions one should ask, as well as how to select objects for comparison and formulate a research plan. The second part focuses on the comparative research of regulation, description, and explanation, along with discussion on functionalism, quantitative approaches, translation issues, legal transplants and global challenges. This review offers a balanced discussion of the seminal research which will benefit legal scholars, students, and all who are undertaking, or seeking to evaluate, comparative legal research.

Table of Contents:
Contents: Volume I Acknowledgements Introduction Method and Methodology of Comparative Law: Introductory Remarks Maurice Adams, Jaakko Husa and Marieke Oderkerk PART I PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS A. Comparative Law and the ‘Legal’ Approach 1. John Bell (2011), ‘Legal Research and the Distinctiveness of Comparative Law’, in Mark Van Hoecke (ed.), Methodologies of Legal Research: What Kind of Method for What Kind of Discipline?, Chapter 9, Oxford, UK and Portland, OR, USA: Hart Publishing, 155–76 2. Mathias Reimann (2012), ‘Comparative Law and Neighbouring Disciplines’, in Mauro Bussani and Ugo Mattei (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Comparative Law, Part I, Chapter 1, New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 13–34 B. Research Aims, Questions and Methods 3. Jaakko Husa (2006), ‘Methodology of Comparative Law Today: From Paradoxes to Flexibility’, Revue Internationale de Droit Comparé, 58 (4), 1095–117 4. Geoffrey Samuel (2014), ‘Asking the Right Question’, in An Introduction to Comparative Law Theory and Method, Chapter 2, Oxford, UK and Portland, OR, USA: Hart Publishing, 25–44 5. Vernon Valentine Palmer (2004), ‘From Lerotholi to Lando: Some Examples of Comparative Law Methodology’, Global Jurist Frontiers, 4 (2), May, i–ii, 1–29 6. Mark Van Hoecke (2015), ‘Methodology of Comparative Law Research’, Law and Method, 5, 1–35, http://www.lawandmethod.nl/tijdschrift/lawandmethod/2015/12/RENM-D-14-00001.pdf (accessed 24/01/2017) PART II GETTING STARTED A. Selecting Objects, Countries and Cases: Comparability 7. Marieke Oderkerk (2001), ‘The Importance of Context: Selecting Legal Systems in Comparative Legal Research’, Netherlands International Law Review, XLVIII (3), December, 293–318 8. Ran Hirschl (2005), ‘The Question of Case Selection in Comparative Constitutional Law’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 53 (1), Winter, 125–55 B. Where to Find the Objects to Compare: Sources of Law 9. Rodolfo Sacco (1991), ‘Legal Formants: A Dynamic Approach to Comparative Law (Installment I of II)’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 39 (1), Winter, 1–34 10. Rodolfo Sacco (1991), ‘Legal Formants: A Dynamic Approach to Comparative Law (Installment II of II)’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 39 (2), Spring, 343–401 11. Stefan Vogenauer (2006), ‘Sources of Law and Legal Method in Comparative Law’, in Mathias Reimann and Reinhard Zimmermann (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law, Part III:Chapter 27, New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press, 869–98 12. David J. Gerber (1998), ‘System Dynamics: Toward a Language of Comparative Law?’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 46 (4), Autumn, 719–37 C. Research Plan and Examples 13. Gerhard Dannemann (2006), ‘Comparative Law: Study of Similarities or Differences?’, in Mathias Reimann and Reinhard Zimmermann (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law, Part II: Chapter 11, New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press, 383–419 14. John C. Reitz (1998), ‘How to Do Comparative Law’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 46 (4), Autumn, 617–36 15. Esin Örücü (2007), ‘A Project: Comparative Law in Action’, in Esin Örücü and David Nelken (eds), Comparative Law: A Handbook, Part III: Chapter 19, Portland, OR, USA: Hart Publishing, 435–449 16. Mark Van Hoecke (2004), ‘Deep Level Comparative Law’, in Epistemology and Methodology of Comparative Law, Chapter 9, Oxford, UK and Portland, OR, USA: Hart Publishing, 165–95 17. Maurice Adams and John Griffiths (2012), ‘Against “Comparative Method”: Explaining Similarities and Differences’, in Maurice Adams and Jacco Bomhoff (eds), Practice and Theory in Comparative Law, Chapter 13, New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 279–301 PART III ACTION A. Regulating 18. Jan M. Smits (2006), ‘Comparative Law and its Influence on National Legal Systems’, in Mathias Reimann and Reinhard Zimmermann (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law, Part II: Chapter 15, New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press, 513–38 19. Jane Stapleton (2007), ‘Benefits of Comparative Tort Reasoning: Lost in Translation’, Journal of Tort Law, 1 (3), October, i–ii, 1–45 20. Aleksandar Momirov and Andria Naudé Fourie (2009), ‘Vertical Comparative Law Methods: Tools for Conceptualising the International Rule of Law’, Erasmus Law Review, 2 (3), 291–309 B. Describing Legal Systems 21. Rudolf B. Schlesinger (1961), ‘The Common Core of Legal Systems: An Emerging Subject of Comparative Study’, in Kurt H. Nadelmann, Arthur T. von Mehren and John N. Hazard (eds), XXth Century Comparative and Conflicts Law: Legal Essays in Honor of Hessel E. Yntema, Part I, Leyden, the Netherlands: A.W. Sythoff, 65–79 22. John Cartwright and Martijn Hesselink (2008), ‘Introduction’ and ‘Conclusions’, in Precontractual Liability in European Private Law, Chapter 1 and Chapter 5, New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 1–17, 449–88 23. Vernon Valentine Palmer (2012), ‘A Descriptive and Comparative Overview’, in Mixed Jurisdictions Worldwide: The Third Legal Family: Second Edition, Part I: Chapter I, New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 19–92 C. Explaining Similarities and Differences 24. James Q. Whitman (2004), ‘The Two Western Cultures of Privacy: Dignity Versus Liberty’, Yale Law Journal, 113 (6), April, 1151–1221 25. Máximo Langer (2004), ‘From Legal Transplants to Legal Translations: The Globalization of Plea Bargaining and the Americanization Thesis in Criminal Procedure’, Harvard International Law Journal, 45 (1), Winter, 1–64 Volume II Acknowledgements Introduction An introduction to both volumes by the editors appears in Volume I PART I SOME CURRENT DEBATES A. Interdisciplinarity 1. Geoffrey Samuel (2013), ‘Comparative Law and its Methodology’, in Dawn Watkins and Mandy Burton (eds.), Research Methods in Law, Chapter 6, Abingdon, UK and New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 100–118 2. Jaakko Husa (2014), ‘Interdisciplinary Comparative Law – Between Scylla and Charybdis?’, Journal of Comparative Law, 9 (2), 12–26 3. Karen McAuliffe (2014), ‘Translating Ambiguity’, Journal of Comparative Law, 9 (2), 65–87 B. Functionalism 4. Konrad Zweigert and Hein Kötz (1998), ‘The Method of Comparative Law’, in An Introduction to Comparative Law: Third Edition, Part I, Chapter 3, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 32–47 5. Günter Frankenberg (1985), ‘Critical Comparisons: Re-thinking Comparative Law’, Harvard International Law Journal, 26 (2), Spring, 411–55 6. Jaakko Husa (2013), ‘Functional Method in Comparative Law – Much Ado About Nothing?’, European Property Law Journal, 2 (1), April, 4–21 C. Language 7. Gerard-René de Groot (2012), ‘Legal Translation’, in Jan M. Smits (ed.), Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law: Second Edition, Chapter 43, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing 538–49 8. Max Gluckman (1997), ‘Concepts in the Comparative Study of Tribal Law’, in Laura Nader (ed.), Law in Culture and Society, Part IV, London, UK and Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA, USA: University of California Press, 349–73 9. Paul Bohannan (1997), ‘Ethnography and Comparison in Legal Anthropology’, in Laura Nader (ed.), Law in Culture and Society, Part IV, London, UK and Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA, USA: University of California Press, 401–18 D. Quantitative Approaches 10. Mathias M. Siems (2005), ‘Numerical Comparative Law: Do We Need Statistical Evidence in Law in Order to Reduce Complexity?’, Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law, 13, 521–40 11. Anne Meuwese and Mila Versteeg (2012), ‘Quantitative Methods for Comparative Constitutional Law’, in Maurice Adams and Jacco Bomhoff (eds), Practice and Theory in Comparative Law, Chapter 11, New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 230–57 12. Francesco Parisi and Barbara Luppi (2012), ‘Quantitative Methods in Comparative Law’, in Pier Giuseppe Monateri (ed.), Methods of Comparative Law, Part VI: Chapter 16, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 306–16 E. Legal Families, Traditions and Cultures 13. Mathias Siems (2014), ‘Mapping the World’s Legal Systems’, in Comparative Law, Part I: Chapter 4, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 72–94 14. H. Patrick Glenn (2008), ‘A Concept of Legal Tradition’, Queen’s Law Journal, 34, 427–45 15. Esin Örücü (2004), ‘Family Trees for Legal Systems: Towards a Contemporary Approach’, in Mark Van Hoecke (ed.), Epistemology and Methodology of Comparative Law, Chapter 18, Oxford, UK and Portland, OR, USA: Hart Publishing, 359–75 16. David Nelken (2007), ‘Defining and Using the Concept of Legal Culture’, in Esin Örücü and David Nelken (eds), Comparative Law: A Handbook, Part II: Chapter 5, Portland, OR, USA: Hart Publishing, 109–32 17. Hamid Harasani (2014), ‘Islamic Law as a Comparable Model in Comparative Legal Research: Devising a Method’, Global Journal of Comparative Law, 3 (2), 186–202 18. Teemu Ruskola (2002), ‘Legal Orientalism’, Michigan Law Review, 101 (1), October, 179–234 F. Legal Transplants 19. Alan Watson (1974), ‘Introduction to Legal Transplants’, in Legal Transplants: An Approach to Comparative Law, Chapter 4, Charlottesville, VA, USA: University Press of Virginia, 21–30 20. Pierre Legrand (1997), ‘The Impossibility of “Legal Transplants”’, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 4, 111–24 [14] 21. Gunther Teubner (1998), ‘Legal Irritants: Good Faith in British Law or How Unifying Law Ends up in New Divergences’, Modern Law Review, 61 (1), January, 11–32 [22] 22. David Nelken (2003), ‘Comparatists and Transferability’, in Pierre Legrand and Roderick Munday (eds), Comparative Legal Studies: Traditions and Transitions, Chapter 12, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 437–66 G. Legal Origins 23. Christopher A. Whytock (2009), ‘Legal Origins, Functionalism, and the Future of Comparative Law’, Brigham Young University Law Review, 2009 (6), 1879–1905 24. John Reitz (2009), ‘Legal Origins, Comparative Law, and Political Economy’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 57 (4), Fall, 847–62 H. Challenges of Globalization and Transnationalization: Interacting Legal Orders and Dynamic Comparisons 25. Peer Zumbansen (2012), ‘Transnational Comparisons: Theory and Practice of Comparative Law as a Critique of Global Governance’, in Maurice Adams and Jacco Bomhoff (eds), Practice and Theory in Comparative Law, Chapter 9, New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 186–211 26. Larry Catá Backer (2008), ‘Multinational Corporations as Objects and Sources of Transnational Regulation’, ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law, 14 (2), 499–523 27. Jonathan B. Wiener (2001), ‘Something Borrowed for Something Blue: Legal Transplants and the Evolution of Global Environmental Law’, Ecology Law Quarterly, 27 (4), 1295–371 28. Gerhard Dannemann (2012), ‘In Search of System Neutrality: Methodological Issues in the Drafting of European Contract Law Rules ’, in Maurice Adams and Jacco Bomhoff (eds), Practice and Theory in Comparative Law, Chapter 5, New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 96–119 Index